Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS): What the radiologists need to know?

Abstract Background A retrospective study was conducted on 71 consecutive patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) with a mean age of 56 years and underwent mp-MRI of the prostate at 3 Tesla MRI. Two readers recognized all prostatic lesions, and each lesion had a score according to Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS-v2). Purpose of the study To evaluate the interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 in characterization of prostatic lesions using multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) at 3 Tesla MRI. Results The overall interobserver agreement of PI-RADS-v2 for both zones was excellent (k = 0.81, percent agreement = 94.9%). In the peripheral zone (PZ) lesions are the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS II (k = 0.78, percent agreement = 83.9%), PI-RADS III (k = 0.66, percent agreement = 91.3 %), PI-RADS IV (k = 0.69, percent agreement = 93.5%), and PI-RADS V (k = 0.91, percent agreement = 95.7 %). In the transitional zone (TZ) lesions are the interobserver agreement for PI-RADS I (k = 0.98, percent of agreement = 96%), PI-RADS II (k = 0.65, percent agreement = 96%), PI-RADS III (k = 0.65, percent agreement = 88%), PI-RADS IV (k = 0.83, percent agreement = 96%), and PI-RADS V (k = 0.82, percent agreement = 92%). Conclusion We concluded that PI-RADS-v2 is a reliable and a reproducible imaging modality for the characterization of prostatic lesions and detection of PCa.

Download Full-text

Re: Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Associated with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 (Equivocal) Lesions Identified on Multiparametric Prostate MRI

The Journal of Urology ◽

10.1016/j.juro.2018.03.123 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 200 (1) ◽

pp. 11-11

Author(s):

Cary Siegel

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Data System ◽

Prostate Mri ◽

Prostate Imaging ◽

Multiparametric Prostate Mri ◽

Clinically Significant

Download Full-text

Evaluating the performance of clinical and radiological data in predicting prostate cancer in prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 category 3 lesions of the peripheral and the transition zones

International Urology and Nephrology ◽

10.1007/s11255-021-03071-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Caterina Gaudiano ◽

Lorenzo Bianchi ◽

Beniamino Corcioni ◽

Francesca Giunchi ◽

Riccardo Schiavina ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Data System ◽

Transition Zones ◽

Prostate Imaging ◽

Radiological Data

Download Full-text

Comparison of prostate imaging reporting and data system v2.1 and 2 in transition and peripheral zones: evaluation of interreader agreement and diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer

British Journal of Radiology ◽

10.1259/bjr.20201434 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 20201434

Author(s):

Yasuyo Urase ◽

Yoshiko Ueno ◽

Tsutomu Tamada ◽

Keitaro Sofue ◽

Satoru Takahashi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Diagnostic Performance ◽

Area Under The Curve ◽

Data System ◽

Transition Zones ◽

Prostate Imaging ◽

Institutional Review ◽

3.0 T ◽

Clinically Significant ◽

Interreader Agreement

Objectives: To evaluate the interreader agreement and diagnostic performance of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1, in comparison with v2. Methods: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective study. Seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T before radical prostatectomy were included. Four radiologists (two experienced uroradiologists and two inexperienced radiologists) independently scored eight regions [six peripheral zones (PZ) and two transition zones (TZ)] using v2.1 and v2. Interreader agreement was assessed using κ statistics. To evaluate diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC), area under the curve (AUC) was estimated. Results 228 regions were pathologically diagnosed as positive for csPC. With a cutoff ≥3, the agreement among all readers was better with v2.1 than v2 in TZ, PZ, or both zones combined (κ-value: TZ, 0.509 vs 0.414; PZ, 0.686 vs 0.568; both zones combined, 0.644 vs 0.531). With a cutoff ≥4, the agreement among all readers was also better with v2.1 than v2 in the PZ or both zones combined (κ-value: PZ, 0.761 vs 0.701; both zones combined, 0.756 vs 0.709). For all readers, AUC with v2.1 was higher than with v2 (TZ, 0.826–0.907 vs 0.788–0.856; PZ, 0.857–0.919 vs 0.853–0.902). Conclusions: Our study suggests that the PI-RADS v2.1 could improve the interreader agreement and might contribute to improved diagnostic performance compared with v2. Advances in knowledge: PI-RADS v2.1 has a potential to improve interreader variability and diagnostic performance among radiologists with different levels of expertise.

Download Full-text